Research faculty often experience poor mentoring, low vitality, and burnout. We report on our logic model inputs, activities, measurable outcomes, and impact of a novel mentoring intervention for biomedical research faculty: the C-Change Mentoring & Leadership Institute. We present a) a detailed description of the curriculum and process, b) evaluation of the program’s mentoring effectiveness from the perspective of participants, and c) documentation of mentoring correlated with key positive outcomes.

A yearlong facilitated group peer mentoring program that convened quarterly in person was conducted twice (2020–2022) as part of an NIH-funded randomized controlled study. The culture change intervention aimed to increase faculty vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence through structured career planning and learning of skills essential for advancement and leadership in academic medicine. Participants were 40 midcareer MD and PhD research faculty, half women, and half underrepresented by race or ethnicity from 27 US medical schools.

Participants highly rated their mentoring received at the Institute. Extent of effective mentoring experienced correlated strongly with the measurable outcomes of enhanced vitality, self-efficacy in career advancement, research and work-life integration, feelings of inclusion in the program, valuing diversity, and skills for addressing inequity.

The mentoring model fully included men and women and historically underrepresented persons in medicine and minimized problems of power, gender, race, and ethnicity discordance. The intervention successfully addressed the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality, developing faculty careers, facilitating cross-cultural engagement and inclusion, and contributing to cultivating cultures of inclusive excellence in academic medicine.

Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence.

We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace.

Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007).

The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.

Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates.

The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3–14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine.

The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005).

Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

The influence of personality on field of study choice is comparable to that of cognitive skills. Additionally, personality traits seem linked with academic motivation, and engagement. Choosing the most suitable career is also related to students’ personal well-being and work success.

To explore how personality traits are associated with the choice of university courses among Italian students.

A web-survey was spread on social networks between March and June 2020 through Google Forms. Eligibility criteria for inclusion were: 1) Being a university student between 18 and 35 years of age; 2) Attending a course in an Italian university; 3) Good comprehension of Italian language. On-line informed consent, socio-demographic, and career data were collected during the survey. Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI). We computed multinomial linear regressions to calculate potential associations between personality traits and university courses.

Lower Conscientiousness, higher Neuroticism, and higher Openness to experience are associated with the attendance of Humanities compared with students of Health faculties. Higher Neuroticism traits are associated with the attendance of a scientific course compared with Health faculties. High Conscientiousness is significantly associated with the attendance of Law-related courses compared with Health courses. Non significant differences were detected in the other domains according to the big five personality model.

Our results suggest interesting associations between personality traits and educational choices. Future research may investigate this relationship in high-school students to implement appropriate strategies for better addressing students’ educational needs and career outcomes.

No significant relationships.

To study the effectiveness of any educational intervention for faculty requires first that they attend the training. Using attendance as a measure of faculty engagement, this study examined factors associated with the percentage of faculty in divisions of departments of medicine who attended a workshop as part of a multisite study.

Between October 2018 and March 2020, 1675 of 4767 faculty in 120 divisions of 14 departments of medicine attended a 3-hour in-person workshop as part of the Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine (BRIM) initiative. This paper describes the workshop development and study design. The number of faculty per division ranged from 5 to 296. Attendance rates varied from 2.7% to 90.1%. Taking a quality improvement approach, the study team brainstormed factors potentially related to variations in workshop attendance, constructed several division- and institution-level variables, and assessed the significance of factors on workshop attendance with hierarchical linear models.

The following were positively associated with workshop attendance rate: the division head attended the workshop, the BRIM principal investigator gave Medical Grand Rounds, and the percentage of local workshop presenters who completed training. Workshop attendance rates fell when departments identified more than five on-site study leaders.

Factors associated with higher workshop attendance may have increased the perceived status and value of attending the workshop, leading faculty to choose the workshop over other competing demands. For future investigators studying educational interventions that require participation of faculty in clinical departments at multiple sites, this work offers several valuable lessons.

We sought to gather a comprehensive list of funding strategies and opportunities for emergency medicine (EM) centres across Canada, and make recommendations on how to successfully fund all levels of research activity, including research projects, staff salaries, infrastructure, and researcher stipends.

We formed an expert panel consisting of volunteers recognized nationally for their scholarly work in EM. First, we conducted interviews with academic leaders and researchers to obtain a description of their local funding strategies using a standardized open-ended questionnaire. Panelists then identified emerging funding models. Second, we listed funding opportunities and initiatives at the provincial, national, and international levels. Finally, we used an iterative consensus-based approach to derive pragmatic recommendations after incorporating comments and suggestions from participants at an academic symposium.

Our review of funding strategies identified four funding models: 1) investigator dependent model, 2) practice plan, 3) generous benefactor, and 4) mixed funding. Recommendations in this document include approaches for research contributors and producers (seven recommendations), for local academic leaders (five recommendations), and for national organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) (three recommendations).

Funding for research in EM varies across Canada and is largely insecure. We offer recommendations to help facilitate funding for large and small projects, for salary support, and for local and national leaders to advance EM research. We believe that these recommendations will increase funding for all levels of EM research activity, including research projects, staff salaries, infrastructure, and researcher stipends.